Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Treasury Department ... vs Sri Chandrodaya Vividodesha Trust on 14 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
WP No. 3911 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3911 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
(MENTIONED AS KARNATKAA STATE TREASURY
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER)
NO. 301/1, AKSHARA 1ST FLOOR,
(AKSAHARA MUDRIKA BUILDING)
LAKSHMI VILAS ROAD, DEVARAJ MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570024
A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, REISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA CO OOPERATIVE
Digitally SOCIETIES ACT 1959
signed by
Vandana S REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
Location: SHRI NINGAIAH
HIGH COURT
OF S/O NAGAIAH
KARNATAKA
AGEDA BOUT 69 YEARS,
OM SHAKTI ROAD, SHAKTI NAGARAM,
MYSURU-570019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
WP No. 3911 of 2024
AND:
1. SRI CHANDRODAYA VIVIDODESHA TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SHRI CHANDRU B
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TELECOM EXTENSION,
BHOGADI,MYSURU-570024.
2. SHRI M C PONNAPPA
S/O M KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A PLOT NO. 3C, SANKALPA SAFAR,
5TH CROSS, V.V MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 04.07.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 AND ALSO ORDER
DTD 16.12.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 6 IN EX. PETITION NO.
128/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, MYSURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
WP No. 3911 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned orders
passed on I.A.No.5 dated 04.07.2023 and I.A.No.6 dated
16.12.2023 in Ex.Petition No.128/2021 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru [for short,
'the executing Court'].
2. Heard the learned Senior counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record will indicate that the
respondent No.1-decree holder instituted the aforesaid
execution proceedings against the respondent No.2-
judgment debtor to enforce and implement the judgment
decree dated 19.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.240/2009 on
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mysuru. In this context, it is relevant to state that in the said
suit, the petitioner herein was arrayed as the defendant
No.3, and as per the said judgment and decree, the trial
Court dismissed the suit as against the petitioner and
decreed the suit only as against the respondent No.2 by
directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- to the
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
respondent No.1 together with interest @ 12% per annum
from the date of the suit till realization. Pursuant to the
decree being put into execution by the respondent No.1-
decree holder against the respondent No.2-judgment
debtor, the respondent No.1 filed two applications viz.,
I.A.No.5 under Order XXI Rule 57 read with Sections 60
and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short,
'CPC'] seeking attachment of the application schedule
property and I.A.No.6 for sale of the said properties. The
executing Court, vide the impugned orders dated
04.07.2023 and 16.12.2023 allowed the said applications
[I.A.Nos.5 and 6] filed by the respondent No.1, aggrieved
by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the
present petition.
4. On instructions, the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner, submits that in the first instance, the
petitioner herein, who is the third party obstructor claiming
independent right, title, interest and possession over the
schedule property sought to be attached and sold, had filed
an application under Order V Rule 10 of CPC, which was
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
rejected by the trial Court, aggrieved by which, the
petitioner has preferred W.P.No.16470/2022, which is
pending before this Court. It is submitted that subsequently,
the petitioner has also filed an application invoking Order
XXI Rule 58 of CPC, which is presently pending
adjudication before the trial Court. It is therefore submitted
that the petitioner would withdraw the said
W.P.No.16470/2022 and necessary directions may be
issued to the trial Court to consider and dispose of the
application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58
of CPC without being influenced by the findings and
observations recorded in the impugned orders.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel submits
that if the petitioner has filed an application under Order
XXI Rule 58 of CPC, the respondent No.1-decree holder
would file its objections if not already filed to the said
application, which can be considered by the trial Court in
accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.
6. The aforesaid material on record will indicate
that the dispute between the petitioner - the third party
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
obstructor and the respondent No.1-decree holder as
regards the schedule properties would necessarily have to
be considered by the trial Court while disposing of the
application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58
of CPC. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and
appropriate to dispose of this petition by suitably modifying
the impugned order passed by the executing Court.
7. In the result, the following:
ORDER
a The petition stands disposed of modifying the
impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed on
I.A.No.5 under Order XXI Rule 57 read with
Sections 60 and 151 of CPC and the
impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed on
I.A.No.6 under Order XXI Rule 66 read with
Section 151 of CPC.
b The submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that it would withdraw
W.P.No.16470/2022, is placed on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:6398
c The trial Court is directed to dispose of the
application filed by the petitioner under Order
XXI Rule 58 of CPC in accordance with law
after providing sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to both the parties and without
being influenced by the findings and
observations recorded in both the impugned
orders within a period of three [3] months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
d All rival contentions on all aspects of the
matter between the parties are kept open and
no opinion is expressed on the same.
e In the meanwhile, till the disposal of the said
application in terms of this order, all further
proceedings before the executing Court shall
remain in abeyance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RB
